Denying an Obvious Goal Scoring Opportunity (DOGSO)

Are you now suggesting he got sent off for stopping a promising attack? It’s impossible to be certain that an obvious goalscoring opportunity was ensuring 35 yards from the goal . He stopped a promising attack , hence yellow in my book.

 

We're talking about the red card incident. If that's not a certain goal scoring opportunity we may as well do away with denying a goalscoring opportunity. The distance from goal is only relevant in terms of making a judgement regarding the ability of the covering defender to catch him. He's clean through ffs. What's going to happen 35 yards out with 15 before he gets his shot off, he might pull up with a hamstring? Yeah sure, we can't be certain he won't so let's not give a red.

 

I might be in the minority but I fully agree with you. Talking about the red card in isolation, Huntingdon ain't getting there to cover and Shepherd is the last man. Could debate how good a goal scoring opportunity it is but if Shep doesn't bring him down he's one on one with the keeper and that's pretty much an example of clear cut.
I'd ask the ones putting a case for it not being a penalty, and be honest, how many of you wouldn't be screaming blue murder at the ref if he didn't give us that at Valley Parade?
I suspect very few if any.

 

He got sent off for denial of obvious goalscoring opportunity (DOGSO). What I'm saying is if you don't want laws to be subjective and down to interpretation how to the make the law so the criteria step from SPA to DOGSO is factual?

 

It never will be. A lot of fans see it as factual on their teams ie. If the ref doesn't agree with me then it's a mistake. It's why refs cop so much flack and always will.

 

Absolutely , it a rule so wide open to interpretion is a farcical rule. You are right in the sense that anything, after the coming together, could happen , hence it’s so far from goal it’s a yellow. Tip: No need for FFS , it doesn’t work with me and weakens your debate!

In most games I watch and I do watch quite a few , that would not be interpreted as a red, even those covered by VAR .

 

I don't get the relevance of it being 35 yards from goal? How does that negate the fact it's a clear goalscoring opportunity. There's nobody ahead of him. He doesn't have to reach the goal line to get his shot off so make that about 15 yards.

Oh sorry, yes, apart from the keeper. Yes, just to clarify

 

That's got to be a joke. Seriously!

 

That’s fair and that’s your interpretation of a rule open to interpretation . It’s water under the bridge , what’s done is done . However I still have to disagree , especially 35 yards from goal… Would you give the same interpretation 40 yards, 50 yards, 60 yards….See what I mean ? It’s a silly rule we all know it.

What is the cut off point in distance where it’s deemed NOT to be a “ scoring opportunity” , I’m curious not being pedantic .

 

It wouldn’t as he was too far from the clear and obvious ….

 

Easy answer, when the distance and position of the covering defender creates doubt as to whether he'd be closed down / covered before the attacker could get his shot off. It's basic. Saliba was sent off earlier this season from a good 60 yards from goal. Why? Because nobody covering would've caught up with the striker.

 

Plus he wasn't actually in 'control' of the ball....not like he had it at his feet bearing down on goal......

 

He was goal side of the halfway line I believe.

 

Yeah it would be a red. Why not? If there's no way anyone is catching up with him and he's got a free run on goal. I'm glad you're engaging with what I'm trying to say. In terms of denying a goal scoring opportunity I don't understand why distance from goal matters. If you've got nothing but grass ahead of you and nobody is going to catch you why does it matter?

 

You got me. 50 yards then. 55 at a push.